2013 (9) TMI 1024

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al No. 1908 of 2006 filed in the Supreme Court by the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22-10-2010 [2010 (259) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)], remanded the case back to the Tribunal with the following observations :- "17. As afore-stated, in the instant case, the Tribunal has not examined the genuineness of the addendum, and has proceeded to reject the appeal of the appellant on the short ground that there was no provision for price variation in the original MOA. We may, however, add that the Commissioner (Appeals) did examine the cogency of the reasons for price reduction though he was not convinced to accept the same. 18. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal needs to examine the matter afr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....k, N WingT. It was his case that when appellant came to know of the 'double skin' nature of the vessel's side tanks, it was understood by the appellant that there was bound to be additional weight loss and accordingly appellant negotiated lower value from US $ 992887.20 to US $ 929388.60 as per addendum dated 8-12-1997. 2.2 It was argued by the learned Advocate of the appellant that during finalisation of provisional assessment a certificate dated 7-7-2000 from their surveyor Ericson & Richards, who initially surveyed the vessel in 1997 and who were in possession of all document relating to the impugned vessel was produced which certified that the side Tanks (Double Skin) are evident. It was also argued that 'Trim & Stability Book' ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 8th December, 1997 entered between the appellant and supplier. Shri Anand Nainawati (Advocate) has based his argument that as per the Trim & Stability booklet for the vessel under consideration, the ballast tanks of the vessel were "side tanks, double bottom tanks, forepeak tanks and aft peak tank". It is appellant's case that since WING Tanks were not existing so it was a double skin vessel where more corrosion and tonnage loss takes place. It is seen from the wording of clause 15 of the original MOA dated 19-11-1997 that in the description of Ballast Tanks the category 'Wing T' is existing which is not existing in the translated copy of Trim & Stability booklet No. 595-901-2223 of vessel MV XIN TONG. But in this description the desc....